<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>In my previous posting, I somewhat rashly made the final
position of the verb in subordinate clauses the main argument for SOV as the
basic word order of Continental Germanic (should be Continental Germanic minus
Yiddish, as Ellen points out), neglecting OV order when V is non-tensed
(non-finite). The question is now if early cases of OV order in German (and
Dutch) child language should be seen as evidence that this order is in some
sense basic. A German child meets main clause word orders such as the
following:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Subject </span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>TensedVerb</span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>OtherThings</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Subject Auxiliary </span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>OtherThings</span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>NonTensedVerb</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>If we suppose that the child reproduces these templates
preserving word order but deleting auxiliaries we get:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Subject </span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>TensedVerb</span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>OtherThings</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Subject </span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>OtherThings</span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>NonTensedVerb</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Now, for a child who has not figured out the distinction
between tensed and non-tensed verb forms, this would look like two variants of
the same template. S/he could thus settle on one alternative, or use both of
them. If the OV order is preferred, this may depend on various factors. It is
of course also possible that the child does make a distinction between the two
templates even in the absence of an auxiliary. What ought to be crucial for the
basic OV hypothesis is how strong the tendency is – in particular, how
far it is extended. Does it influence word order also after the acquisition of
auxiliaries and/or the emergence of the tensed/non-tensed distinction? It seems
a little implausible to me that German kids go around saying things like “Ich
krank bin”. Data about the development of verb-negation order in Swedish
child language (that Christer Platzack has reminded me of in an off-list
message – the interpretation is mine, though) suggest that it is hard to
find examples that do not follow adult word order, if one allows for the omission
of auxiliaries. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>But maybe </span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Brian</span></font><font size=2
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> can tell us more
about this.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>- ึsten Dahl</span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>